Talk:Knowledge ecosystem/Archive 2

Complex Systems discussion

Actually, you *can* have goals within a complex system; in fact you need to:

"A Complex System is a network of component nodes that share knowledge with each other and adapt their behavior in order to collaborate to achieve global system goals that could not be achieved alone by any individual node" (from http://jclymer.ecs.fullerton.edu/seminar.htm) User68 07:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like more academic articles, try http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2B%22complex+system%22+%2B%22goals%22&hl=en&lr=

Axelrod and Cohen argue that agents have strategies which is not the same thing as goals. Even that is considered controversial in that it implies intentionality. In human complex systems there is some degree of self awareness, but its at a local level (again a key aspect of a CAS). A complex system has agents constrained by the system and also the system constrained by agents. Its one of the ways you distinguish a complex from a chaotic system (and there is still confusion of the two in this article, reference the use of the world turbulent. In respect of the way in which the term goal is used in management literature it is at best confusing and at worse plain wrong to say that a complex system has goals. Too many people, including a lot of academics, pick up CAS but then reinterpret it through the familiar language of management speak. --Snowded 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, no offense, but this you're not the only authority on KM out there. Please get off your kick to merge everything to being just KM and -- moreover -- please allow views different from your own to exist within the research space, as KM nor KE research is anything but clear-cut and certain. Links exist on the web for a reason, we're not all out to create a single super-uber-page! Regarding why "knowledge ecosystems" should stand on their own; going beyond public webpages, scholar.google.com says about 230-or-so articles with the exact phrase "knowledge ecosystem" http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2B%22knowledge+ecosystem%22&hl=en&lr= ... now please allow referenced articles different from your own view of the world, as either an academic or practitioner, to exist. 96.255.241.54 (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comments below and please try and address the argument not the person, your language here is very similar to WIki4fun by the way, would you confirm that you are different editors (one can never tell with an IP address, especially one newly created.) --Snowded TALK 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hasty Revisions

Regarding the revision of this sentence:

"This "bottom-up" approach to knowledge cultivation is ideal for globally distributed individuals who must exchange time-sensitive knowledge to increase organizational adaptedness and survivability."

to

"This approach is held to be appropriate for any environment in which the requirements for knowledge creation and exchange, are dynamic time dependent and subject to rapidly changing environments."

... in my opinion, the second sentence is actually worse and even more vague/obscure than the first. Thus, I am reverting back to the first sentence until we can discuss further. Please understand that I: (1) do appreciate the concern for buzzwords, and (2) would like to make this a stronger article (however I do not necessarily associate stronger == longer article, it can be brief enough to provide a definition and further references for individuals to search, and therefore be sufficient for Wikipedia).

Well the original phrase is inaccurate. As an approach it might be appropriate to globally distributed individuals but again it might not. It is also appropriate in other circumstances. I have simplified it (and reduced the jargon in the process--Snowded 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kku - please cite the buzzwords you specifically have concerns with please. Removing your post for now until you specifically identify your concerned buzzwords within the article. There are technical terms, and these do not denote buzzwords (i.e., inter-organizational information systems, would you call that a buzzword? Or post-traumatic stress syndrome). This article exists to explain an established term to others, per the Google test:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22Knowledge+Ecosystem%22&meta=

... are you saying that the w3 is using knowledge ecosystems not as a technical term here? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/task_forces/Knowledge_Ecosystem.html User68 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge ecosystems is a valid term, but not if you use the language of process engineering (Goals being but one example) and focus on technology which is just a part of the whole. I have made edits to reflect that. Overall I am with Kku. At the moment this reads like a manifesto rather than an article. There is legitimate use of technical language but a lot of it is thrown in with context or without value. Earlier versions misued co-evolution for example.

As it stands I think its a candidate for deletion, but it needs surgery--Snowded 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My two cents, for what it's worth, is that I do believe this concept of knowledge ecosystem represents a early idea and that to delete it only because it's an early idea is wrong of us. If there are buzzwords, they should be identified here (no one has done that yet, though I am happy to see some simplification of the article occuring) and if there are manifesto concerns, please cite by cut-and-pasting the sentences here for revision. I'm not one typically to adopt a deletist attitude since I fear that in doing these we can be guilty of what Thomas Kuhn would view as "ordinary science surpressing the revolutionary science". I'm not saying that this represents a revolution, but if there are multiple unrelated and legit sources that use the idea, then I believe it is valid to include in an encyclopedia. Wiki4fun 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting better and I didn't propose it for deletion for roughly the reasons you state above. However this is tendency for people to create pages for KM based on their own particular theory, rather than justify themselves in the main KM entry. Some of this is plain commercial, some polemical. As a result I think we need to be on our guard. The recent clean up is much improved, and its origins and purpose are much clearer--Snowded 10:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add my two cents, as I've been visiting other articles on Information Systems and KM; I, too, like the cleanup that's occurred and think this is much improved. However we'll need to keep an eye, as sometimes folks "hijack" legitimate articles for less than legitimate purposes. I will raise the question about what other buzzwords should be removed (I did two rough scans and personally believe they have been eliminated) before we can say this is -- for the moment -- buzzword free? Thoughts? Abc378 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger, Votes for No

No, I don't think this should be merged. The knowledge management article is nice, but it's a bit long and the point of an online encyclopedia is the ability to link. I realize that Snowded, as a cultivator of the KM article, might want to mege with it, but I suggest linking from the KM article and not collapsing it. As one who has followed knowledge ecosystems, they challenge some of the views of KM and thus wouldn't be appropriate to collapse/merge wholly into the article. 96.255.241.243 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, I think we've already had this discussion before a year ago and the decision then was not to merge. I don't see what has changed, searching for the explicit term "knowledge ecosystem" on Google yields about 19,400 hits, so it seems to not be too esoteric to not warrant its own page. Re-echo the idea of linking from KM mgmt, since that is what the web is good at after all, linked related pages yes? :-) User68 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment no one has attempted to do anything with this article and it is a stub at best. The KM article includes a reference to complexity approaches to KM and does not take a particular perspective or line (I watch it by the way but did not create it and think it needs a lot of work). Knowledge Ecology was a buzz word some years ago but I never saw anything take off as a result and if anything it has been subsumed by complex adaptive systems theory approaches. In other words it is a subset of KM not something opposed to KM. If you want it to survive then someone is going to have to do some work on it and soon otherwise its a clear candidate for merge/deletion. A more normal course would be to expand a section of the KM article until there was enough material to justify a separate article. When that moment arrives I doubt Knowledge Ecosystem would be the correct title anyway --Snowded TALK 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add a 3rd vote *not* to merge. Snowded, your logic above is flawed == knowledge management is a buzzword to several folks, so saying knowledge ecosystems is a buzz word is not a recent to merge it with your KM article. You say it's a clear candidate for merge/deletion, but so far you're the only one who's made a motion to merge. I find the Google test to be a worthwhile endeavor, and anything above 15,000 hits seems satisfactory as a separate article. Wiki4fun (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki4fun you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. In the last year nothing has been done to improve the article. Its not my KM article either by they way, I have made some improvements to it but I don't think its a brilliant one. Try not to engage in personal attacks and argue the case. You have to establish (i) that its worth an article and (ii) that this is a worthwhile article. It clearly fails the second point, you are not advancing arguments as to the first point other than a google scholar list of the phrase. Well on that argument we could create 100 articles out of the text alone. Also if you believe in this article then do something with it. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion

Because the voting section should be one person, one vote, one comment, I did not want to add further comments in that section. Wiki4fun and Snowded, could you please also provide further comments here? Agreed that civility on all sides of this issue is needed, sometimes Wikipedia discussions can get heated. Let me suggest that we assume good faith, since Wiki4fun and 96.255.241.54 did not post two separate votes under the voting section- and let me also suggest that we all, Wiki4fun in particular, consult this guide for our collective education. Fortunately this article does not seem to have anywhere near the frenzy as discussion of England, Republic of Ireland, or other articles where Snowded has seen such hi-jinx, so let's assume good faith until behaviors demonstrate otherwise.

That said, on the substantial issues with this topic, I don't think I've heard anything different that what's contained in the archives back in 2007 and now again. Snowded, this might be why your suggestion coming from you, who seemed to be the champion of the pro-merger side a year ago is not being well received by others who may see it as a repeat argument identical to last year’s debate. From your point of view, you seem to think it is not a worthwhile article on the basis of length and possibly needing more quality discussion. In part, I agree with you that elaboration on this topic would be desirable, but to say that 'nothing has changed in one year' does not represent a reason to merge; it may however be a mandate to improve- or it may be an indication of an early science or development in nescient stages. But as you well know, the Academy moves slowly, and things may be in publication queues in our fields that take years to ever see the light of day, let alone become heavily cited. May I suggest we give it time?

Moreover, want to I commend us all for 'being bold' with our recommended edits- and discussing edits collectively prior to taking action. What I've heard regarding mergers: it's a buzz word, it's too short an article. What I've heard regarding not merging: knowledge management is itself a buzz word, it's too long an article, this article has appropriate (albeit it early) references particular to the topic both from the Academy and from practice. Am I missing something else? Snowded is right that more paragraphs are desired, but please again see my comment that the Academy is slow inherently and that we should give it time. I would add to the side to not merge that from my academic understanding, knowledge ecosystems challenge some of the tenets of knowledge management, challenging the premise that knowledge can be managed per se.

Lastly, Wikipedia does not have any recommendations as to the appropriate length of an article, but it does have Wikipedia:Five_pillars that I think we should all read as well. Along with the point that perfection is not required, the 1st and 2nd pillars are worth reviewing:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

Thanks- I commend you all for contributing to Wikipedia; let me suggest we move forward in good faith and see if we can either improve this article, or search out literature as it is published in the coming few years on the subject to incorporate on this subject. Please note that the above text from Further Discussion to here, minus the citation to the Five pillars, is all of mine as of the date signed here. User68 (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will be on travel status the next few weeks and may or may not have access to the internet- thus my long posting above in the hopes that it will calm the debate here, but if it does not, well, I tried. Bonne chance! User68 (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward

Individuals are welcomed to improve this article and/or the Knowledge management article on Wikipedia. User68 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, three possibly four editors were involved in the merge discussion so you might have been a bit premature here, although I agree no new arguments are being made and no consensus is present. I am not sure your decision to close the discussion would stand up to review by an admin. I would still like confirmation from 96.255.241.54 thats/he is not Wiki4fun. A simple statement is all that is needed and I will assume good faith despite the very similar editing styles. i was tempted to simply propose deletion (which would involve admin review) but I'm happy to leave it for a few months and see if people improve this from a two paragraph stub. The Academy may move slowly but it does move --Snowded TALK 07:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume the smaller number, three editors, the vote to merge was 2 against, 1 for and it had been up for more than a month; moreover, Snowded recently posted (exact words here, from the Knowledge management page) "I cam on to this page a year or so at the request of others as a subject matter expert. In that time no group of editors have emerged who want to put the effort into improving the article. During that period every person who publishes an article immediately places it as a reference and places extracts in the article for promotional purposes. We now have Karbinski playing "frustration games" with inconsistent edits. If you delete the schools piece, then most of the rest of the article should go as well. If an when a group of editors emerge with some knowledge of the subject prepared to put the work in then I may start to bother with it again. For the moment I will keep it on watch but its not worth the energy to play games with people not interesting in the subject per se. --Snowded TALK 01:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)" under Knowledge_management, barring the need for collaboration across editors and not creating frustration games at the KM article, or here, if the KM article is in flux and needs improvement, merging with it would seem inappropriate at this juncture, true? User68 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, so far the arguements presented either for merger or deletion seem to be "I Don't Like It" and "No One Has Worked On It/Needs Improvement", however according to Wikipedia itself these arguments to avoid; see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_don.27t_like_it

Specifically:

Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia, it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that needs to be added to it at the present time.

A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.

Snowded, if you sincerely think this article needs improvement, please contribute to it. Many thanks! User68 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

⬅ The KM article is not brilliant as it needs citations etc. but at least its a reasonable summary. Its also suffering a bit at the moment from an upset editor with no interesting in KM who is chasing down pages in an act of revenge as he didn't get his way elsewhere so I have withdrawn for a time to let things calm down. I have also taken measures there and elsewhere to get other KM experts to engage. My action appears to have shamed a few of them so I think we may make progress. Now as to your arguments above:

AfD can be used for articles which are simply stubs, or part expansions of another article. An article has to be notable etc. etc. You can't delete something simply because it has not been worked on or is short, but the failure to edit something can be used in evidence (check a few AfD conversations if you want to see).
An article cannot be used to promote a particular perspective or take on a subject and it is not clear if this is the case here.
Some of the material you have referenced is questionable (the Carol Dumaine slide set for example does nor support the text) and a couple look promotional.
Your edits of today read like an essay or consultancy white paper rather than an encyclopaedia entry
I haven't seen a single thing in the edits today that make this distinct from Knowledge Management, aspects of it are retrogressive if anything (heavy dependence on the tacit and explicit words for example).

As I said I'm happy to leave it for a bit and see what happens but today's changes are not encouraging. --Snowded TALK 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Me a Rock, No that's the Wrong Rock; Bring Me Another... And another...

So one day, a person of some repute said "bring me a rock" and others, wanting to help this person, went out and tried. But when they came back the person said "no, that's the wrong rock". Time passed and again the person said "bring me a rock" and again others, wanting to help, tried to do as such. But again, the person said "no, that's the wrong one"; and so it continued... Harvey the rabbit (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point,but so far two requests for a rock have produced nothing just suggestions that rock may be available at some time in the future. Maybe this time it will be different, and hopefully not sand. --Snowded TALK 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]